Trial registration as a safeguard against outcome reporting bias and spin? A case study of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture

Abstract

Background and objectiveTrial registration is widely endorsed as it is considered not only to enhance transparency and quality of reporting but also to help safeguard against outcome reporting bias and probably spin, known as specific reporting that could distort the interpretation of results thus mislead readers. We planned to investigate the current registration status of recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture, outcome reporting bias in the prospectively registered trials, and the association between trial registration and presence of spin and methodological factors in acupuncture RCTs.MethodsAcupuncture RCTs published in English in recent 5 years (January 2013 to December 2017) were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Trial registration records identified in the publications and trial registries were classified into prospectively registered, retrospectively registered, or unregistered. Primary outcomes were identified and the direction of the results was judged as statistically significant (positive) or statistically nonsignificant (negative). We compared registered and published primary outcomes to assess outcome reporting bias and assessed whether discrepancies favored statistically significant outcomes. Frequency and strategies of spin in published reports with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes were then identified. We also analyzed whether the trial registration status was associated with spin and quality of methodological factors.ResultsOf the 322 included RCTs, 41.9% (n = 135) were prospectively registered. Among 64 studies that were prospectively registered and specified primary outcomes, 25 trials had the discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes and 60% of them (15 trials) favored the statistically significant findings. Among 169 studies that specified primary outcomes, trial registration status was not associated with the direction of results, i.e., statistically significant or not. Spin was identified in 56.4% out of 78 studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and claiming efficacy with no consideration of statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes was the most common strategy for spin. Trial registration status was not statistically different between studies with and without spin.ConclusionWhile trial registration seemed to have improved over time, primary outcomes in registered records and publications were often inconsistent, tending to favor statistically significant findings and spin was common in studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes. Journal editors and researchers in this field should be alerted to still prevalent reporting bias and spin.

Choosing Wisely in clinical practice: Embracing critical thinking, striving for safer care

“…Registered clinical trials showing negative results (where the treatment tested showed no effect) are statistically less likely to be published, and even when published they usually take, on average, 1 year more to get released than trials with positive results. [20, 21]. It was also proven that statistically significant studies may be cited more than negative studies on the same topic, increasing the bias [22].…”

Hundreds of thousands of zombie randomised trials circulate among us

“…In fact, Anaesthesia only considers for publication trials that have been registered. Perhaps the majority of trials from these seven countries were not even registered [7,8] (with variability in the registration rates across countries and over time). Moreover, the proportion of false and zombie trials may be higher among studies that don't even bother to register themselves than among registered ones.…”

The Consistency between Registered Acupuncture-Moxibustion Clinical Studies and Their Published Studies and Update Status of Registered Information

“…The results of several recently published studies, affected by reporting bias, suffered from a reduction in their strength of evidence [14]. However, only a limited number of studies have investigated the current registration status of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to acupuncture-moxibustion as outcome reporting bias in prospectively registered trials [15, 16]. These studies only included RCTs and registered studies that were given a “completed” status in registries.…”